Quite. It would have been nice touch if the per-capita table had some sort of GDP/capita value factored in, rather than assume each person had equivalent access to computer hardware.
chockolate-chips-cookie making and quality-control.
Interesting that you picked an example of something which is both repeatable and can use a control. This cookie not choclatey enough? Repeat the experiment with more chocolate chips.
Art history on the other hand? Well I could say that Edward Hoppers' paintings inspire feelings of lonliness because the artist worked alone and felt distanced from those around him, and that if he was a more gregarious character he would have painted happier pictures. That's got data and a hypothesis. You may think that's science - I don't.
Excavations are not repeatable. Try excavating the context that this Roman coin came out of. You won't find the coin. You won't find the context - the stratigraphy has been destroyed by the simple act of excavating it.
What is being argued about are semantics. What is or is not science? If you're quite happy with the notion that all you need for science is data and a hypothesis then archaeology is a science - but so is everything else, and the use of the word 'science' becomes meaningless.
In America, yes but this is not the case in here in Europe.
Anthropology tends to be tied to Sociology over here, whilst Archaeology tends to be associated with History or even Classics, hence the disparaging 'Archaeology is the handmaiden of History' quote often trotted out.
I guess we've just got different views about what science is. I stand by my assertion that if it's not repeatable or has no control then it's not 'scientific.' Your definition is too wide-ranging for my liking - by your parameters Art History can be defined as a science, something which I'm uncomfortable with.
Your point about not destroying anything that matters is interesting. How do we know what matters to future generations of archaeologists? I'm sure those who 'excavated' the archaic/classical greek sites were doing their best, but they did destroy stuff that mattered to us now. It's naive to think that we're not doing the same today.
For something to be a science, you have to be able to do studies, using methods based on theories, and to get results that can be independently verified by repeating the study by peer scientists.
Archeology is exactly that..
No it isn't. Many aspects of archaeology are non-repeatable. Excavation is the obvious example. If you cannot have a control and it is non-repeatable then I'd argue that it is not a science.
Secondly, although archaeology uses many scientific techniques, it is fundamentally subjective. Once you've excavated a site, got dates from objects and contexts one is still left with the subjective opinions of the primary excavator. What was Stonehenge for? Different archaeologists have different views, though they all may agree on the layout, size and age of the site. And don't even get started on Biblical archaeology!
Even before that though subjectivity comes into play - where do we dig? where are the bounds of the excavation? what methods of excavation are we going to use?
Check out some of the writings of Ian Hodder or Phil Barker to explore some of these ideas further.
Quite. Plato's story of Atlantis was a politically based moralising tale. These guys might well have found something, but which sells more (mainstream) books?:
We found a 2,500 year old settlement in Europe!
or
WE FOUND ATLANTIS!!
No, they won't get much (any) funding from academic bodies, but they'll get a good publishing deal.
C-14 dates: They were thought to be very precise and accurate, but as it turns out some calibration of measured dates is required.
It was originally thought that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere was constant over time. It's been later found out that this is incorrect. In addition there is the 'hard water error' which affects results quite badly. However by correlating dendrochronology dates (very, very precise and accurate) with C-14 dates we have quite a refined system. C-14 dates are represented as a date with an error margin and percentage probability eg 10,000BP +/- 200years at 2 standard deviations.
C-14 isn't a fundemental principle of Archaeology. It's one of many tools that are used.
Archaeology is great for looking at the 'duree longue'... broad sweeps of history and identifying trends therein. eg one can say that over a 100 year period this site switched from using pots made at site y to those made at site z. We can't always say why those changes occurred - although historical facts help. Looking at a single pot can't tell us an awful lot.
With your C analogy (IAAACP - I am also a C programmer) we'd look at lots of snippets of code identify differences between them, date them (except there is no scientific method for dating code) and hypothesise as to what changes and why.
Archaeology is not a science, certainly not an 'arcane science'. It's a discipline which employs (amongst other things) scientific techniques, such as C-14 dating.
I'll second that. My Palm m125 used 2xAAA batteries and lasted about six weeks before changes were necessary.
Upgraded to a Zire 70 a few weeks ago - batteries need recharging every week, and there's been no significant change in my usage.
America isn't the world. Unless it links up to identical systems around the world it's next to useless. Nothing to stop someone of, say Arabic descent, coming in from German on a German passport and carrying out an act of terrorism.
You specify a delivery slot (depending on the company this can be in one- or three-hour increments) place your order and wait.
They're delivered from the local store in small vans with refrigeration units. If something is out of stock they'll deliver a replacement item. Anything you don't want (ordered too much milk? pears overripe?) you can send back with the driver and the amount is deducted from your bill.
...whisper it very quietly but...maybe there isn't a massive terrorist threat of this nature...
I travel on the tube daily and know a couple of people who work at one of the busier stations. Anyone knows it's desperately easy for a suicide bomber to blow up a tube train. Carry a rucksack packed with the necessary equipment and off you go.
Slashdot Mirror
Lies, damned lies, and statistics... ;-)
chockolate-chips-cookie making and quality-control.
Interesting that you picked an example of something which is both repeatable and can use a control. This cookie not choclatey enough? Repeat the experiment with more chocolate chips.
Art history on the other hand? Well I could say that Edward Hoppers' paintings inspire feelings of lonliness because the artist worked alone and felt distanced from those around him, and that if he was a more gregarious character he would have painted happier pictures. That's got data and a hypothesis. You may think that's science - I don't.
What is being argued about are semantics. What is or is not science? If you're quite happy with the notion that all you need for science is data and a hypothesis then archaeology is a science - but so is everything else, and the use of the word 'science' becomes meaningless.
Anthropology tends to be tied to Sociology over here, whilst Archaeology tends to be associated with History or even Classics, hence the disparaging 'Archaeology is the handmaiden of History' quote often trotted out.
And then we end up in the situation where almost everything is a science, and the word becomes meaningless!
Your point about not destroying anything that matters is interesting. How do we know what matters to future generations of archaeologists? I'm sure those who 'excavated' the archaic/classical greek sites were doing their best, but they did destroy stuff that mattered to us now. It's naive to think that we're not doing the same today.
No it isn't. Many aspects of archaeology are non-repeatable. Excavation is the obvious example. If you cannot have a control and it is non-repeatable then I'd argue that it is not a science.
Secondly, although archaeology uses many scientific techniques, it is fundamentally subjective. Once you've excavated a site, got dates from objects and contexts one is still left with the subjective opinions of the primary excavator. What was Stonehenge for? Different archaeologists have different views, though they all may agree on the layout, size and age of the site. And don't even get started on Biblical archaeology!
Even before that though subjectivity comes into play - where do we dig? where are the bounds of the excavation? what methods of excavation are we going to use?
Check out some of the writings of Ian Hodder or Phil Barker to explore some of these ideas further.
BTW, IAAA.
We found a 2,500 year old settlement in Europe!
or
WE FOUND ATLANTIS!!
No, they won't get much (any) funding from academic bodies, but they'll get a good publishing deal.
But that requires a priori knowledge of how the code changes. By 'scientific' I should have maybe meant 'independent'.
It was originally thought that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere was constant over time. It's been later found out that this is incorrect. In addition there is the 'hard water error' which affects results quite badly. However by correlating dendrochronology dates (very, very precise and accurate) with C-14 dates we have quite a refined system. C-14 dates are represented as a date with an error margin and percentage probability eg 10,000BP +/- 200years at 2 standard deviations.
C-14 isn't a fundemental principle of Archaeology. It's one of many tools that are used.
IAAA (I am an archaeologist)
... broad sweeps of history and identifying trends therein. eg one can say that over a 100 year period this site switched from using pots made at site y to those made at site z. We can't always say why those changes occurred - although historical facts help. Looking at a single pot can't tell us an awful lot.
Archaeology is great for looking at the 'duree longue'
With your C analogy (IAAACP - I am also a C programmer) we'd look at lots of snippets of code identify differences between them, date them (except there is no scientific method for dating code) and hypothesise as to what changes and why.
Archaeology is not a science, certainly not an 'arcane science'. It's a discipline which employs (amongst other things) scientific techniques, such as C-14 dating.
...you'll feel differently when you've got a wife and a couple of kids.
The new centre is at Swanwick in Hampshire, not Swanage in Dorset!!
Obviously. Surely the point being that battery technology is lagging behind other hardware developments.
I'll second that. My Palm m125 used 2xAAA batteries and lasted about six weeks before changes were necessary. Upgraded to a Zire 70 a few weeks ago - batteries need recharging every week, and there's been no significant change in my usage.
The rest of it's about right though...
Anyone had any good use out of it?
One suspects that that technology is some way off.
Sadly, the guy at the top is. :-(
You specify a delivery slot (depending on the company this can be in one- or three-hour increments) place your order and wait.
They're delivered from the local store in small vans with refrigeration units. If something is out of stock they'll deliver a replacement item. Anything you don't want (ordered too much milk? pears overripe?) you can send back with the driver and the amount is deducted from your bill.
Tends to work very well.
I travel on the tube daily and know a couple of people who work at one of the busier stations. Anyone knows it's desperately easy for a suicide bomber to blow up a tube train. Carry a rucksack packed with the necessary equipment and off you go.